How Are Non-Price Attributes Evaluated in GETS Tenders?

When responding to a government tender, the price you submit is only one part of the evaluation. Buyers will usually assess several non-price attributes to determine whether your business has the experience, people, systems and proposed approach needed to deliver the contract successfully.

Understanding how this evaluation works can make the tender process feel less mysterious, particularly for small New Zealand businesses tendering through GETS for the first time.

What are non-price attributes?

Non-price attributes are the qualitative parts of a tender response. They help the buyer assess the merits of each proposal without focusing solely on cost.

Depending on the contract, these attributes may include:

• Relevant experience and track record

• Understanding of the requirements

• Proposed methodology or solution

• Skills and experience of key personnel

• Capacity and availability

• Quality and management systems

• Risk management

• Health and safety

• Cultural capability

• Environmental or economic benefits

New Zealand Government Procurement describes qualitative criteria as measures of technical merit, capability, capacity, risk and the supplier’s ability to deliver the required outcomes.

Does GETS evaluate the tenders?

No. GETS is the platform used to advertise opportunities, provide tender documents and receive supplier submissions.

The evaluation itself is completed by the government agency or public organisation purchasing the goods or services. The buyer normally appoints an evaluation panel made up of people with relevant operational, technical, commercial or procurement experience.

The panel must follow the criteria, scoring system and evaluation methodology described in the tender documents. Suppliers must be treated fairly, impartially and consistently throughout the process.

1. Compliance is checked first

Before the non-price attributes are scored, the buyer may check that each submission meets the tender’s preconditions and mandatory requirements.

These are generally assessed on a pass-or-fail basis.

Preconditions might require the supplier to:

• Hold a particular licence or accreditation

• Maintain specified insurance cover

• Accept important contractual requirements

• Meet a minimum level of capability

Mandatory submission conditions might include completing particular forms, providing contact details or including a signed conflict-of-interest declaration.

A supplier that fails a critical precondition or mandatory condition may be excluded before the qualitative response is evaluated. The tender documents should explain which requirements are mandatory and whether the buyer has discretion to accept minor, easily corrected errors.

2. Each non-price attribute has an evaluation criterion

The tender documents should explain the criteria against which the responses will be evaluated. These criteria usually correspond with the questions or response sections suppliers are required to complete.

For example, a tender could include the following non-price attributes:

• Relevant experience

• Proposed approach

• Key personnel

• Contract management

• Risk management

• Economic benefits

Evaluators are expected to assess each response against the stated criterion - not simply decide whether they personally like the supplier or its proposal.

Government evaluation decisions should not be based on hearsay, irrelevant information or the personal views of individual panel members. The panel must also maintain records explaining how each response was assessed.

3. Evaluators use a defined scoring scale

Each non-price attribute is normally scored using a rating scale included in the buyer’s evaluation methodology.

New Zealand Government Procurement recommends a 0–5 scale in most situations, although a 0–10 scale may be used when the buyer needs greater differentiation between proposals.

A typical 0–5 scale works as follows:

5 – Excellent

The response exceeds the requirement and demonstrates exceptional capability, understanding or experience, supported by evidence.

4 – Good

The response satisfies the requirement and provides some additional benefits or added value.

3 – Acceptable

The response satisfies the requirement and provides sufficient supporting evidence.

2 – Minor reservations

The response generally satisfies the requirement, but the evaluator has some concerns or finds limited supporting evidence.

1 – Serious reservations

The response creates significant concerns about the supplier’s capability or proposed approach.

0 – Unacceptable

The response does not meet the requirement, does not provide enough information or is non-compliant.

The exact language and scores can differ between tenders, so the evaluation scale contained in the individual tender documents remains the most important reference.

4. Different attributes may carry different weightings

Not every non-price attribute is equally important.

A buyer may assign a percentage weighting to each criterion based on the risks, priorities and outcomes associated with the contract. The weightings should normally total 100% for the attributes being scored.

For example:

• Proposed methodology: 40%

• Relevant experience: 35%

• Key personnel: 25%

• 
  

The evaluator first awards a raw score using the defined scale. That raw score is then adjusted according to the criterion’s weighting.

Using the example above:

• Methodology receives 4 out of 5: 32 points out of 40

• Experience receives 3 out of 5: 21 points out of 35

• Key personnel receives 5 out of 5: 25 points out of 25

The total non-price score would be 78 points out of 100.

The weighted-attribute model is the most common evaluation methodology used in New Zealand public sector procurement. It allows the buyer to give greater influence to the attributes that matter most for successful delivery.

5. Panel members usually score independently

Evaluation panel members will generally review and score each proposal individually before discussing it with the wider panel.

During this initial assessment, evaluators consider:

• How well the response addresses the criterion

• Whether the proposed solution meets the requirement

• The strength and relevance of the evidence provided

• Any identified limitations or risks

• Whether the response offers additional value

Independent scoring helps reduce the risk that one evaluator’s opinion will influence the others before they have formed their own judgement. Government guidance recommends that panel members independently review and score proposals before the panel consolidates its findings.

6. The scores are moderated

Once the individual evaluations have been completed, the panel normally holds a moderation meeting.

During moderation, panel members compare their scores and discuss the reasons for any significant differences. They may identify information that one evaluator interpreted differently or evidence another evaluator considered more significant.

The panel can then establish final scores by:

• Reaching a consensus through discussion

• Averaging the individual scores

• Using a combination of moderation and averaging

New Zealand Government Procurement considers consensus through moderation preferable in many situations because it allows the panel to discuss the relative strengths and weaknesses of each response and agree on a supported final score.

7. Suppliers may be shortlisted

For some procurements, the non-price evaluation is used to create a shortlist.

Only the highest-ranked suppliers or suppliers that meet a required quality threshold may progress to the next stage. That stage could include:

• A supplier presentation

• An interview with the proposed team

• Solution demonstrations

• Reference checks

• Clarification questions

• Other due-diligence activities

The purpose of these activities is usually to clarify, confirm or test information contained in the written proposal. How the results affect the final evaluation should be governed by the methodology established for that tender.

8. The final non-price ranking is recorded

After moderation and any additional evaluation activities, the panel records the final scores and ranks the suppliers.

The evaluation recommendation normally documents:

• The responses received

• The evaluation process used

• Each supplier’s scores

• The principal strengths and weaknesses identified

• Due-diligence findings

• The final ranking

• The recommended supplier or suppliers

The evaluation report must provide a clear record of how the panel reached its recommendation and demonstrate that each submission received fair consideration.

How does price fit into the process?

The relationship between price and non-price scores depends on the evaluation model selected by the buyer.

Price may be:

• Included as another weighted criterion

• Evaluated separately after non-price scoring

• Withheld from the panel until a quality shortlist has been agreed

• Considered during a final value-for-money assessment

• Negotiated with the highest-ranked supplier under a quality-led process

Where price is evaluated separately, the panel may complete and finalise its non-price assessment before seeing the suppliers’ prices. This helps keep the initial assessment focused on quality and delivery capability.

The key point to understand

Government tender evaluation is intended to be a structured comparison rather than a general judgement about which company appears most impressive.

Each supplier is assessed against:

• The same published criteria

• The same scoring scale

• The same attribute weightings

• The same evaluation methodology

The resulting scores help the buyer compare the relative quality, capability and risk of each proposal before determining which supplier represents the best overall outcome.

See out other guide that explains how to structure and evidence your responses so they have the best opportunity to achieve strong non-price scores.

Want us to help you win your next tender?

Reach our team on enquiries@kiwibidsupport.co.nz or use our online enquiry form